Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan likened Singaporeans’ relationship with the People’s Action Party (PAP), forged 50 years ago, to a marriage.
“Relationships have ups and downs. Sometimes, you even need to fight.
“The point… is, a relationship is not a one-night stand. It’s not just finding the mostINTERESTING, the most entertaining partner, but about someone who you are going to spend another 50 years or more (with),” he said.
His PAP team is contesting the Holland-Bukit TimahGROUPrepresentation constituency (GRC) against a Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team led by party chief Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Dr Balakrishnan said at a rally at Commonwealth Avenue last night that the PAP hadEARNED the trust of Singaporeans through the long relationship.
But along the way in this “marriage”, a third party will try to barge in.
“Let’s be honest. There will always be opportunities.
“How do third parties come in? They come in when they sense the relationship is not close… not strong or when there are issues that are not yet resolved,” he said.
The opposition, he said, will campaign on the basis of the politics of anger, envy, jealousy and class division.
“But actually what they are trying to do is barge into our home.”
The relationship isn’t always glamorous.
“Many opposition politicians look down on PAP politicians for spending so much time on the ground, for knocking on your doors humbly, for looking at drains,CHASING rat burrows, getting rid of mosquitoes,” he said.
But the PAP does it so people will know the party is there for them, Dr Balakrishnan said.
“We do all these things because of a relationship. Because I want you to know that I’m there for you. That I will look after you, protect your children, that I’llINVEST (in) and build your neighbourhoods,” he said.
He said the party has built a relationship based on trust.
‘IT’S ABOUT TRUST’
“People knew whether we did the popular or unpopular thing… we did it with you, for you and for Singapore. It’s not just a slogan. It’s really about trust,” he said.
And that includes designing a system unique to Singapore to help those who need it most.
Describing Singapore as having one of the fastest ageing population, coupled with one of the fastest shrinking population, he said the Government had to consider a model that would best serve the differentGROUPS.
For example, the welfare state model from Western countries provides universal benefits but at the cost of highTAXES.
Such a systemWORKS if the population and its people’s wages are growing, and if the middle class are able to afford the high tax rates, he said.
But when a population is ageing and is expected to shrink in theFUTURE, the system will fail, he said, adding that Japan was one such example.
Singapore, on the other hand, works on its own model, built on the basis of personal and family responsibility, savings, living within our means, having insurance and subsidies targeted for the needy.
“The value of our Singapore model, which is unique, is that we can make sure the people who need help receive help, we don’t run out ofMONEY and the reserves are not raided.
“For the Pioneer Generation, $8 billion put aside, we didn’t pass the bill to the children. We took it straightaway (from the) present budget, settled andACCOUNTED for,” he said.
The point… is, a relationship is not a one-night stand. It’s not just finding the mostINTERESTING, the most entertaining partner, but about someone who you are going to spend another 50 years or more (with).
At the sidelines of the Orange Ribbon Run 2015 that marked 50 years of racial harmony in Singapore, Chairman of OnePeople.sg, Dr Janil Puthucheary shared with Popspoken that he feels racial harmony in Singapore is “really quite exceptional” but “is not something to be taken for granted”. A whopping 7,000 people participated in the third edition of the Orange Ribbon Run – an event organized by OnePeople,sg, a national body that promotes multiracialism in Singapore. The event saw the support of Team Singapore athletes including former Olympian, Mr. C. Kunalan, SEA Games 2015 athletes and players from the Football Association of Singapore.
When we probed further on how racial harmony could be promoted, Dr Janil replied, “There’s no one single approach… We organise different types of dialogues, debates and discussions about the issues of racial harmony, religious harmony and moving beyond this, tolerance and trust is our mission. So we are talking about it. We are talking about it, and we are encouraging people to think about it and to believe that this is something worth fighting for, worth standing for.”
On how rising racial tensions in neighbouring Malaysia affecting Singapore, Dr Janil noted, “Well, you know, our political structure in Singapore is such that we can’t play racial politics. That was something that was set up in 1965, very deliberately. And I think it’s something most Singaporeans – almost, I believe, all Singaporeans – believe it’s a strength that we have in our nation. That people are not going to get support if they try to feed into racial anxieties, if they try to stir up racial tensions, and it amounts to some degree of agitation.” He believes that our political structure is mature enough to move away from a model of having to “appeal to, engage with, and serve the broad middle ground of most Singaporeans, if not all Singaporeans.”
We all share a common humanity: DPM Teo
Mr Teo Chee Hean, Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs graced the event.In his speech, heCREDITED the government for progress made in the sphere of racial harmony.
He touched upon the government’s success of deliberate policy making (e.g. bilingualism, common education system, integrated housing, fairness in the workplace etc), which has succesfully resulted in cohesively integrating people from different backgrounds.
DPM Teo also rallied the crowd to open their hearts and minds, and come together as one people. He believes that reaching out to another to understand someone better, will definitely bring people closer together. At the same time, he cautioned against people with their own “agendas” who try to “accentuate” differences.
Everyone sharing a ‘common humanity’,was to him, something worthwhile to celebrate. It is hence imperative for us to think about how we can enlarge the existing areas we have in common “and not allow anyone who wants to accentuate differences to succeed in dividing us,” said DPM Teo.
The People’s Action Party (PAP) has often said that it believes multi-party democracy would be bad for Singapore.
This is an untenable position.
In the past 150 years, several societies, primarily in the West, have flourished and developed under systems of multi-party democracy. To argue categorically that Singaporeans should not vote in an alternative party because it will hurt us, is an argument that would hold no water with many.
ST ILLUSTRATION: MIEL
Conversely, the opposition has argued that single-party dominance would be bad for the future of Singapore, and diverse voices are needed to bring us forward. This argument, being the mirror image of the PAP’s, is just as faulty. First, Singapore made the greatest leaps in development and quality of life during PAP’s complete political dominance under Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Second, in the global arena, one-party China beats multi-party democracy India on mostINDICATORS of human and economic development.
The fact of the matter is that the truth lies somewhere in between. There are multi-party democracies that work, and there are those that are paralysed by competitive politics. There are single-partyGOVERNMENTS that are ridden by corruption and who cause misery to their people, and there are competent ones that are able to implement visionary long-term policies without being blocked at every juncture.
The bestFORM of government is, at the end of the day, the one that works.
As Singaporeans go to the polls on Friday, dogma and ideology should not hinder us from making the right decision.
The overarching issue in the campaigning hitherto – which encompasses all others such as immigration, cost of living, healthcare, education and so forth – is whether the electorate should vote in more opposition into Parliament as alternative voices, and as a check on the PAP.
And, bearing in mind the preceding arguments, the answer is clear: we should do so, only if the Opposition is good. Having Opposition for the sake of opposing voices would be exactly the kind of dogma we seek to avoid.
But what, then, makes a good Opposition?
ESTATE MANAGERS OR LEGISLATORS?
Crucial to this question is what a Member of Parliament (MP) is meant to do, another debate that has been ongoing. And again the debate has been framed in a simplisticBINARY fashion thus far: should MPs be town council managers or parliamentary legislators?
The answer is obviously both.
First, an MP needs to show that he has the ability and integrity to manage a town council well. A town council is set up as a microcosm of the issues that a country at large faces. At the heart of it is the allocation of financial and other resources to maintain housing estates, upgrade them, disburse grants to needier constituents and manage other day-to-day operations of the constituency.
It is boring and mundane, but absolutely vital to keep a town running. Likewise, it is also these nitty-gritties that keep a country running, not grand speeches and rhetoric.
And that is why the town council issue, as confusing and grating as it may be for laymen, is so important.
If you can’t run a town, how can you run a country?
QUALITY OVER QUANTITY
Second, as many have rightly pointed out, MPs must also perform in Parliament. However, the debate on this has also been simplistic.
Several websites have compiled lists of the number of times MPs have spoken and have asked voters to make a judgment based on that. The Workers’ Party has also pointed to its parliamentary record of asking the most questions over the highest number of sittings.
This is valuing quantity over quality.
It is not the number of parliamentary questions one files but the impact one makes on the legislative agenda that counts. It is what one says that is important, not the number of times one speaks up.
A case in point is former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon, who, by getting the Maintenance of Parents ActPASSED, arguably made even more impact in the history of Parliament than most PAP backbenchers.
If the Workers’ Party retains or increases its presence in Parliament, I hope its MPs will file full motions to debate matters of national importance they have championed during campaigning, such as minimum wage and the nationalisation of public transport, instead of filing hundreds of parliamentary questions that nobody remembers. Or, worse, engaging in fiery speeches that, in the end, results only in minor policy tweaks to the ruling party’s, is not only counterproductive but makes a mockery of being an Opposition MP.
This Polling Day, Singapore is at a crossroad. Many of us are not against the establishment of a good, credible Opposition that can contribute to nation-building. What we do not want is a fixation on numbers, that we have to have more Opposition MPs regardless of who they are and what they stand for. Such dogma would only be detrimental to Singapore.
Ever since it kick-started its general election campaign in January this year, the Singapore Democratic Party has made it a point to pack its calendar with something every month. As a publicity campaign, it has surely drawn a lot of attention, but also the negative kind from the ruling People’s Action Party.
The name-calling and character assassination that secretary-general Chee Soon Juan suffered in his time as a politician has only intensified, as PAP politicians spared no time in launching fresh attacks against him. The media, too, was eager to report on these attacks.
The biggest losers, however, would be citizens, who hardly have any chance to hear the SDP on its entire slate of policy proposals – the most wide-ranging and comprehensive by far among any political party.
Did such efforts help to drown out the SDP? The reverse might be true. Crowd sizes and the vocal support at the rallies, not to mention the long queue of rally-goers for Chee to sign the books they purchased, suggests that SDP’s traction has increased, either due to Chee’s personal brand, or what the party has been rolling out and engaging residents with in walkabouts.
The question now is whether the SDP would be able to build upon its success at GE2011 – although not winning any seats, the party scored the highest in terms of vote percentage increase since the last election – or whether the refreshed attacks might blunt its voter appeal compared to other opposition parties, as the real risk for this GE could be political oblivion.
Does SDP have the credible slate of candidates it needs to face off against PAP? Will the beleaguered reputation of Chee cause more harm than good for the party? Will its many policy proposals finally fall on deaf ears if it cannot produce any Members of Parliament to have them discussed in the House?
New blood, new attitude
The launch event for SDP’s “Your Voice in Parliament” campaign went out with a bang in January 2015, and it has surely shook the PAP, particularly with the side announcement that it was keen to contest Tanjong Pagar GRC. Hence, it was hardly surprising that the first blood drawn for GE2015 was by Tanjong Pagar incumbent Chan Chun Sing, who went on national media tocall Chee a political failure.
But Chee’s initial reaction was surprisingly measured, if not downright humbling. “I want to tell my fellow Singaporeans, especially students, that we must not be afraid to fail. It is from our failures that we learn and become better persons and go on to achieve great things.” Such words speak of a man with great fortitude, and solidifies the SDP’s brand and goals.
Chee, it seems, have found the right public relations mix to rebuild his battered image as an opposition mad man, caused by his ideals (which were often perceived or painted to be extremist) and actions (hunger strikes and shouting at then PM Goh Chok Tong during walkabouts).
To add to that, Chee seems to have found a more credible and measured slate of candidates to run, including Paul Tambyah, Chong Wai Fung, John Tan, Bryan Lim, and Jaslyn Go. It would appear that SDP is eager to get on a more professional footing, contrary to the “rabble-rouser” image that it has been smeared with. In particular, Dr Paul Tambyah comes across as possibly the most distinguished among opposition candidates this GE. His demeanor – as someone who cares for the people, knows exactly what he says and will not pull punches to say it – pinpoints exactly what a constructive opposition should really be about.
Chee Soon Juan and Lawrence Wong (image – CNA)
The PAP, however, has been less than admirable in how it approached SDP. The incumbent has either written SDP off as irrelevant or treats Chee like a convenient punching bag, as the volleys of insults filled media space. Following Chan, Lawrence Wong exploited a live broadcast to attack Chee’s character by dredging us the latter’s fumble with figures in his Parliamentary select committee speech. Chee’s opponent in Holland Bukit Timah GRC, Vivian Balakrishnan, also attacked the SDP’s policies as “tax and spend” programmes that would turn Singapore into Greece. Balakrishnan’s GRC team mate Sim Ann also slammed Chee for his earlier dispute with Singapore People’s Party’s Chiam See Tong, and recently chastised Chee as someone who likes to “chut pattern”.
Chee, again, responded to Wong with class, reminding the PAP “not to indulge in the destructive politics of old” and instead re-focused the debate back to the SDP’s proposals and how it has raised issue with government policies. And thus far, he seems intent on ignoring Sim’s frivolity.
Similarly, Chee’s response to Balakrishnan was equally focused, if not a lot more hard-hitting, going back to policy issues. Chee has demonstrated an eagerness to focus on policy issues rather than take broad swipes, as what the PAP has done. What the PAP has not done in making GE2015 a clean fight, SDP has done by focusing on the issues that matter.
The direction is sound. SDP is projecting itself as a credible alternative, giving voters a reason to vote for the party, not just against the incumbent, as Chee often says. These policies, previously nothing more than thorns in the side of the PAP, are starting to turn into festering wounds, as the incumbent appears to be struggling to find proper counters to the proposals other than “cautions” and “tax and spend” statements.
SDP’s policy papers, plotted out over the past few years, have highlighted precisely how inadequately the PAP has prepared for this campaign, as the PAP has thus far done little to demonstrate its policy direction for the future, beyond its current “trust us and we will sort it out later” mantra. The PAP comes across as a lumbering machine slow to respond to the concerns of citizens, while the SDP has expressed connection and determination to chart a way forward.
Chong Wai Fung and Jaslyn Go
To note, SDP’s proposals are not watertight, and Chee has also indicated so himself at his policy launches. He has maintained that he welcomes criticism and debate on SDP’s proposals, if only to make them better at answering the needs of Singaporeans. This open and consultative approach bodes well, and would likely serve as the SDP’s election promise to citizens.
A drop of red in a sea of white and blue?
The SDP has thus far projected itself as a credible alternative to Singapore politics, if not public policy. It has gamely taken up the challenge to put ideas to paper, with the hope that citizens would put faith in turning those ideas into reality. Chee, as party leader, has done a lot more to restore his public image, and if the response of the audience to his recent rally speechesis anything to go by, Singaporeans are starting to get the sense that he is not the crazed and deceitful bag of political cunning that he has been painted to be.
It was also apparent at rallies that Singaporeans are listening more to the SDP’s policy proposals, finding resonance with the ideas and looking beyond the far-left, human-rights-or-nothing-else mandates that they were made out to be (in reality, they never were – you can never divorce social and economic progress from a firm grounding in human rights).
Would it be enough to secure Chee and the SDP a place in Parliament? While the likes of Dr Paul Tambyah and Chong Wai Fung are immediately electable, we should also not discount Chee as a potent force whose support from the people has only grown in past years. Only time will tell if he will be seen in a different light from yesteryears, and secure the people’s trust.
Nevertheless, as we edge closer to polling day, the SDP is turning out to be the PAP’s weakest link. In the face of uncertain times and lacklustre policy direction, the SDP is shaping up to be the party that many want the PAP to be, but for some reason never found the courage to be. And courage would be Chee’s and the SDP’s greatest ally this week.
SETIAP hari, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim bangun sekitar 5.15 pagi.
Biasanya, bapa dua anak itu menyiapkan sarapan bagi keluarganya, menunaikan solat dan menghantar mereka ke stesen MRT.
Sabtu lalu, Berita Harian menjejaki kempen Dr Yaacob, di sekitar GRC Jalan Besar bagi pilihan raya umum ini.
Beliau menemui aktivisnya di Ariff Restaurant, sebuah kedai kopi 24 jam di Kallang Bahru, untuk bersarapan roti perata sekitar 7 pagi.
Antara perkara pertama yang dilakukan ialah membincangkan rancangan serta strategi untuk hari itu.
Sekitar 8 pagi, Dr Yaacob dan aktivisnya tiba di pasar Blok 29 Bendemeer Road menemui pegerai dan penduduk.
Di sana, beliau disertai anggota lain pasukan GRC Jalan Besar – Encik Heng Chee How, Cik Denise Phua dan Dr Lily Neo.
Pada 10 pagi, mereka meneruskan lawatan ke pasar di Sims Place pula.
Di situ, mereka bertembung dan berjabat tangan dengan pasukan pesaing Parti Pekerja (WP), yang bertanding di kawasan itu.
Rata-rata, sambutan penduduk semasa lawatan di kededua pasar itu mesra.
Dari masa ke masa, ada juga penduduk yang meluahkan rasa tidak puas hati atau memberi maklum balas, termasuk seorang penduduk yang rasa kecewa kerana tidak mendapat baucar cukai barangan dan perkhidmatan (GST).
Kegiatan berkempen diteruskan dengan lawatan rumah ke rumah di sekurang-kurangnya empat blok di Sims Drive hingga sekitar 12 tengah hari.
Dr Yaacob dan pasukannya bergegas dari rumah ke rumah untuk meminta sokongan penduduk.
“Strategi kami adalah bertemu seramai mungkin penduduk di rumah dalam tempoh berkempen ini,” ujarnya.
Menurutnya, ramai penduduk sudah mengenalinya kerana beliau pernah mengadakan lawatan rumah ke rumah sebelum ini.
“Kempen macam peperiksaan. Kami tidak mampu membuat persiapan saat akhir,” ujar seorang aktivis beliau.
Selepas lawatan itu, Dr Yaacob pulang untuk bersiap menghadiri Majlis Anugerah Muis di Istana yang berlangsung hingga sekitar 4 petang.
Beliau meneruskan kegiatan berkempen pada sebelah petang dan biasanya berakhir sekitar 10 malam.
, the most entertaining partner, but about someone who you are going to spend another 50 years or more (with),” he said.
![Prof Paul [Photo: Yee Kai, TOC]](http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Yee-Kai-Paul-Tambyah.jpg)
